Skip to main content

About your Search

20121224
20130101
STATION
CSPAN2 7
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
CSPAN
Dec 23, 2012 9:00pm EST
if was seen by a gentleman as cowardly and don't sneakily carry it around inside your coat, so you know, that began to change. >> host: and it's actually it still holds true today most places don't have any restrictions on openly carrying guns which most people of realize that there are places that do have restrictions on them but it goes back to that sort of historical sense that was the guy with a concealed gun whereas if you're if you had it in your holster. >> guest: they have no rules practically about that. but anyway, the -- >> host: then you had the foothills -- slave issue. >> guest: and the whites in the south some of them began to see personal firearms as a means of defending themselves against slavery if they needed to. later on as we approached the civil war and abolition became a strong movement the abolitionists wanted to provide guns to the supporters of the north's leader in kansas and vice versa, so they wanted to supply arms to the abolitionist so they could defend themselves against attacks by their opponents. after the war the ku klux klan and groups like that the r
CSPAN
Dec 30, 2012 12:00pm EST
. this was seen by gentlemen as cowardly. if you cannot be a man can wear your pistol on your hip and don't sneakily carry it around and say turcotte. so that began to change. >> host: was still holds true today. most places don't have restrictions on open carrying of guns, but there are places to do on concealed guns. but it goes back to the historical sense but the coward was the guy with the concealed gun, whereas if you have them in your holster >> guest: a state like vermont has no rules practically at all about that. but anyway, he had the same issues. >> host: -- >> guest: whites in the south again to see personal firearms is the name of defending themselves slave rebellions that they needed to. later on as we approached the civil war and abolition became a strong esmond, abolitionists wanted to provide guidance to supporters of no slavery in kansas and vice versa. so they wanted to supply arms so they could defend themselves against attacks by their opponents. after the war, the ku klux klan and groups like that arose and they were persecuting freedmen, freed likes in the blacks b
CSPAN
Dec 30, 2012 9:00pm EST
there was no mention of an alternative possibility. they serve american lives because it is about the fanatics, you don't hear but the russian side of the equation and the other traces that could be had. >> it stirs up controversy and i wonder if we could move on to some of the areas that they argue have already elicited the commentary on different sides. the cold war is essential to when you write about here and to the film, and perhaps as i read it your argument mentions that the united states is primarily to blame, that stalin and the soviets would have been open to a new welcoming continuation of the wartime alliance between the two countries, but it was the american actions primarily. some allies, the british for example, which leader of a wanted gold for. is that an adequate portrayal? >> guest: i would say that's accurate. we certainly don't consider the stalin to be blameless in all of this and we certainly don't downplay the brutality or the terrible things that were done in the name of the soviet union under the leadership. i think it's important to factor in, but look at the broad sweep of t
CSPAN
Dec 24, 2012 12:00am EST
, this was seen by gentlemen as cowardly. if you are going to be a man, wear your pistol on your hip and don't sneakily carry it around inside your coat. so that began to change. >> host: it's actually -- still holds true today. most places don't have any restrictions on open carrying of guns, which a lot of people don't realize but there are restrictions on carrying concealed guns. goes back to the historical sense that the coward was the guy with the cop sealed gun, whereas if you openly had it in your holster -- >> guest: when you came upon somebody else. state like vermont has no rules practically at all about that. but anyway, the -- >> host: then you had the slave issue. >> guest: slaves, before the civil war, didn't have guns. and whites in the south, some of them began to see personal firearms as a means of defending themselves against slave rebelons if they needed to. later on, as we approached the civil war and abolition became strong movement, the abolitionists wanted to provide guns to the supporters of no slavery in kansas, and vice versa. so they wanted to supply arms to the ab
CSPAN
Dec 25, 2012 5:00pm EST
scientists say there are three reasons why leaders don't matter that much. that the leader of any organization faces external constraint. if you are a ceo of a company you have a competitor. you can't set your price at whatever you want. they are constraints and all the things that happen inside a country or company or military unit. you can't do whatever you want. maybe most importantly leaders are a chosen randomly. most leader of powerful organization that we care that have the ability to reshape history. they're not picked out of a hat. they're pick the abuse the organization is looking for someone with some set of characteristic. >> the leadership process. >> i think every organizer should have a process. very few organizations are going to pick people randomly. it include company or countries. if you look in the the right way the scientist which aren't an organization at all. countries where if we look at the most recent presidential election in the united states. there were people people saying it's not this person. tim pawlenty drops off and michele bachmann drops off and
CSPAN
Dec 29, 2012 10:00pm EST
questions before he and as opposed to asking questions they don't know about to get a more natural response? >>guest: i always do the latter and prepare a great deal to have a long list of questions. it is more valuable to have that spontaneous exchange. . . reading your book, maybe i am reading in to this but did you talk with the queen in crafting your book? >> well, the queen, as a policy and is probably sensible from her standpoint, which is that in her entire 60 year reign she has never given an interview and that has helped probably to preserve her mystique and is kept her from having to pick and choose who she might give interviews to. i was lucky to meet her three times and private social settings and i describe her three times in the book. at each of them was brief, but revelatory and in each case it gave little glimpses of that private side, that gaiety of spirit, the flash of wit and so, they were very valuable to me. i also watched her a lot in different settings. i traveled with her overseas. i traveled with her around the u.k. so i could see how she interacted with people. in
CSPAN
Dec 31, 2012 12:00am EST
were fanatics. you don't hear the russian side of the equation and the choices that could be had. >> these books have to stand up to controversy and i wonder if we could cover the areas that obviously -- the story is -- has already elicited commentary. and as i read it, your argument is that the united states is primarily to blame for the beginning of the cold war, that stalin and the soviets would have been open to -- were welcoming a continuation of the wartime alliance between the two countries but it was american actions primarily, with in allies, british, for example, which were involved in the cold war. is that accurate? >> i'd say that is accurate. certainly don't consider stalin blameless in all of this, and certainly don't downplay stalin's brutality or the terrible things that were done in the name of the soviet union under stalin's leadership. we think that's important to factor in but if you look at the broad sweep of the history of the united states' relationship with the soviet union, beginning in 1917-1918, when the united states first went to the soviet union, as
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7